The unpredictable world of online marketing & web analytics

Dogfood

February 23, 2009

I have exciting (for me) news to share with you today – I have a new job, with the somewhat tongue-twisting title of Director of Yield Business Intelligence Product Management. I know, cool, huh?

In case you’re left a little non-plussed by precisely what Yield Business Intelligence is, let me enlighten you: I’m in charge of the systems that Microsoft has to analyze the yield of our online advertising inventory. My more long-standing readers may remember that I’ve blogged about yield before, in my Online Advertising 101 series of posts.

For an online publisher – in fact, for any advertising-funded business (hell, for any business) – yield and cost are what it’s all about. If you can’t sell your stuff for more than it cost you to make it, you’ve not got a viable business. So understanding yield, in detail, is essential. And that’s my new job. Should be a great opportunity to return to my analytics roots, but this time with a slightly different data set. And I get to continue to think about online advertising from the publisher/network perspective – something that I’ve really enjoyed doing in the past year.

So you can look forward to more posts here about the trials and tribulations of making money from online advertising inventory. Given the convulsions some parts of the industry are going through, it should be an interesting ride.

February 15, 2009

Ah, Mrs Thomas, you know me too well. The only problem with it is that it’s just too perfect to actually eat. As you’ll have no doubt already worked out just by looking at it, it’s made of 70% milk, 20% dark and 10% white chocolate. From the wonderful Mary & Matt.

February 10, 2009

The excellent Tom Slee (aka. Whimsley) has been on my blogroll for some time. Tom writes longish posts about a range of interesting topics – at the moment he’s in the middle of a dissertation about whether Amazon’s recommendation service really does help unknown authors to find an audience and side-step the ‘evil’ publishing business (I have a suspicion about how the answer will turn out).

Part of Whimsley’s appeal is that he seems to toil away in the same kind of semi-obscurity that I do [violins]; but recently he’s had a burst of traffic to his site thanks to a link from Jeff Atwood, who referenced an excellent Whimsley post about the role of Google in shaping the Internet. The short version of Whimsley’s thesis is that because of the way Google’s ranking algorithm (especially the PageRank part) works, Google is as much as driver of what’s popular on the Internet as it is a reflector of that. You should read the whole post to get the full story.

But the interesting point raised by Jeff Atwood is, is Google a monopoly? The comments to Jeff’s post are full of people echoing Google’s official response to the accusation of monoplism – which is that users are free to switch their search engine at any time.But Whimsley makes the point that it’s extremely difficult for an advertiser to switch away from Google. This is not because Google makes it difficult, but because Google provides such an essential service – AdWords – to advertisers that it’s almost impossible to run certain kinds of businesses without it. And, of course, it’s the advertisers that provide Google’s income, not the end users executing searches.

Now, I’m aware that I would be on extremely thin ice, both morally and legally, if I were to speculate on whether Google’s market position constitutes a monopoly. And, just to be clear, I’m not. I’m also not speculating on how it was that Microsoft ended up in trouble with the DOJ (I in fact have very little knowledge of the specifics of the case). All I would say is that Google and Microsoft have a lot more in common than people might like to believe. Neither is staffed by moustache-twirling evildoers (to borrow Whimsley’s excellent phrase); both are trying to develop their business and improve the services that they provide to customers. The challenge is to do so from a strong market position without ending up behaving in a monopolistic fashion.